The correct, imo, perspective here is that everything in our sphere of understanding comes from somewhere. Therefore, it makes sense to accept that it all springs from a fundamental source that we cannot understand or fathom. That's where logic ends and intuitive percetion begins, aided by inter-subjective agreement by lots of people throughout history.
You are getting to the root I think. The choice at the beginning of scientism, the worldview which includes the premise that five-sense-evidence is "best", more "real", or true, is just that, a choice. It feels right, but is it truly true? One could argue that it's true because it yields that which is best, or at least better, for Man. But you're still stuck with value judgements there. So is it more true? Only faith can answer that.
=============Quote from pspr:
No, no one has any views on this subject.
Maybe you should read the Bible or other religious works and see if anyone has ever, in the history of man, had any views on the subject.
Good points.
I liked Free T illustration of global cooling & the white rabbits adapted better to snow .{Not a racial statement}
Thats adapting, not evolution.Those two descriptions are atheist.
To be agnostic is generally accepted as the unspecific uncertainty of all claims to knowledge. If you make agnostic specific to religion then agnostic about God becomes hopelessly illogical, almost a joke, which is said to be indeed how the term was coined.
Agnostics don't know, but they do know, that they don't know.
I don't see that as anything resembling a correct perspective. For it to be so, you would have to disregard entirely, or at least keep oneself ignorant of knowledge about the universe as it has unfolded throughout history.
Through such knowledge, which science has proved over and over to be substantial and valid approach to understanding, that fundamental source you talk of , has all the hallmarks of springing out of nothing. A quantum burp. A fundamental source.
Don't forget lightening once was beyond logic, and it was only that intuitive perception aided by inter-subjective agreement by lots of people in Scandinavia that lead to a belief that Thor was the only way to fathom it.
We live in a twice altered world. First when man started believing lies and second when the Great Flood happened... so what we see as nature and human nature is a far cry from what we were designed for in the first place. We've been adapting to this changed environment for thousands of years but we're far from having the capabilities to fight diseases that are spread by bad behavior for one example, we are incapable of being warriors without suffering emotional side effects for another, there are just a lot of things that we are exposed to in this life that we aren't adapted to nor will we ever be... so the best thing to do is to avoid the bad behaviors and try to avoid the consequences of other people's bad behaviors by suppressing their activity.. wouldn't the Ten Commandments and the rest of the ideas in the Bible do that for us pretty muchly?